Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1989/04/11 - Regular" " CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 11, 1989 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER: Pursuant to Agenda posted April 7, 1989, Chairman Seibert " called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Chairman Seibert led the flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Budds, Griffiths, Muto and Chairman Seibert Absent: Commissioner Coolman Also Present: City Attorney Martin, City Manager Koski, Community Development Director Dawson and Assistant Planner Kates Commissioner Griffiths moved to excuse Commissioner Coolman for cause. Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Muto moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Griffiths and approved unanimously. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of March 28, 1989 Approved as written B. MONTHLY CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT - March, 1989 Received and filed 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -958 Site: 5919 OAK AVENUE Owner /Applicant: Ming Nang Chen 404 East Las Tunas Drive #205 San Gabriel, CA 91776 " Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1989 Page 2 Request: A Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7 unit, 7,350 square foot retail - commercial shopping center on an 18,500 square foot C -2 Zoned parcel. Director Dawson gave updated information. There was no video. Commissioner Muto asked about the landscaping. Director Dawson stated the Zoning Code requires 2% landscaping. Assistant Planner Kates pointed out the landscaping and hardscaping on the plot plan. Commissioner Muto also inquired about the trees. Director Dawson stated that the trees could be located in the parking lot area. -Trees can be planted so that they overhang the cars with a 6 inch curb around the tree to protect it and also serves as a curb for the cars.. Commissioner Budds asked about the existing building on the lot and the relationship of the project to the plumbing shop. Director Dawson stated that the existing building would be removed and that the plumbing shop was just to the north of the project. Chairman Seibert reopened the public hearing. Ming Nang Chen, 404 E. Las Tunas Drive, #205, San Gabriel, CA 91776, showed a rough sketch of the site plan. He stated that although the staff report had indicated it was not on a major corridor, it is across the street from another development and from the post office and just around the corner from Las Tunas. Chairman Seibert asked if any alternative plans had been considered such as office uses. Mr. Chen stated they had done some marketing research and office usage was not the way to go. He also stated they had done some marketing to interest tenants and have a computer store, travel agency and blueprint shop interested. They are also negotiating with a leasing agent to prelease the site. " Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hear- ing, seconded by Commissioner Budds. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 11, 1989 Commissioner Muto stated that ideally a study for over- all development should be considered. However, there are some impracticalities so that it cannot be recom- mended at this time. As far as the project itself was concerned he stated he had no problems. The recommenda- tions of the staff indicated that all requirements of the City had been met. Commissioner Budds stated that in looking over the site the only potential of making it a larger project would be if the plumbing business wanted to move and there does not seem to be any indication of that. With re- gards to staff's concern as to whether this would be a successful shopping center, that is something the mar- keting aspect of the owner would have to answer. Con- sidering that Oak is a very active street and the signal allows you to cross Las Tunas more quickly than any other cross streets other than Golden West, he stated he did not have a problem with the project. Commissioner Griffiths stated he had a couple of prob- lems with the project. Oak Avenue is heavily traveled and he was not sure what the vehicular access impact would be. He stated that at some place there was a saturation point on how many small mini -malls the City can absorb. He stated he would like to see a more substantial use made of property like this site, perhaps an office building would be more palatable. However, it does meet the requirements of the Zoning Code and there are no grounds to turn it down. Chairman Seibert stated that he agreed with Commissioner Griffiths about the concerns of mini - malls. However, the applicant does meet all the requirements and there are no reasons to deny this request. Commissioner Muto moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 88 -958 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. Chairman Seibert informed the applicant there was a 10 day appeal period. B. CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE 89 -972 Site: 5323 -25 -27 WELLAND Owner /Applicant: Owen Construction Co., Inc. 2035 South Myrtle Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 11, 1989 Request: A Certificate of Compliance to legalize 3 existing "Tax Assessor Parcels ", resulting in 3 independent lots; a front yard determination for each of the 3 independent parcels and Zone Variances to permit one of the three proposed new detached single family resi- dences to be constructed with a 5 foot first story setback and a 10 foot second story setback rather than the mini- mum required setbacks of 10 feet for the first story and 15 feet for the second story and a Variance to permit a second dwelling unit to be constructed with a 10 foot rear yard rather than the minimum required 15 foot rear yard in the R -2 Zone. Chairman Seibert asked Director Dawson if there was any additional information. Director Dawson presented the additional information. The public hearing was reopened. Mike Mangana, Secretary of Owen Construction, 2035 South Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016, stated that the property was subdivided prior to incorporation and prior to the Subdivision Map Act. Before the Subdivision Map Act was enacted, anyone could subdivide their property without processing a tract or parcel map through the City. You merely had an engineer describe the property with a meets and bounds description, place said descrip- tion on a deed and record it. .Those types of lots are shown on the County's tax map as dotted or dashed lines. Solid lines represent lots created by tracts or parcel maps. This situation exists on the subject property as does it on over 600 lots in the City; 52 lots in the immediate area, bounded by Daines and Freer and between Santa Anita and El Monte. This is not even addressing lots in the City that are not flag configuration. The problem is further compounded because the property is zoned R -2 and because there is no ordinance regulating setbacks for existing legal non - conforming flag lots. Also R -2 setback requirements are typically used on larger lots as they were created for apartment and condos and really do not work when R -1 type uses are utilized in the R -2 Zone. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 11, 1989 Another point that should be noted is the fact that these homes could have been sold to individual owners separately and they would face similar problems if they wanted to expand, replace or remodel the homes. If this site were developed as a detached condo site, it could contain four homes like the project located at 5403 Welland, Parcel 18884, that was approved by the Commis- sion last year. We are only asking to rebuild three homes on three existing lots of record, therefore we have reduced the overall density. Because these lots were created prior to any guidelines with regard to minimum square footage and minimum dimensions by the governmental authority having jurisdiction at the time of the creation of these lots, these types of lots exist in the hundreds in this city and it is only going to be a matter of time before there are other such requests. Although they might not involve three lots in a row, as an unsuspecting homebuyer would have been granted title insurance and allowed to purchase just one home on its lot, we are stuck with these lots in their current size and shape and have to deal with them. On Lot 2 you could not build a 20 by 20 garage and meet R -2 setback requirements. The total square footage of a structure that meets the setback requirements would be 945 square feet on Lot 2. Mr. Mangana presented draw- ings showing the setbacks required under the R -2 Zone and stated there was no way to build homes without a variance. He stated he was not advocating that variances be granted on lots where homes could be built without variances, but owners of substandard, legal non-con- forming lots should not be penalized. This type of problem would not exist had the lots been created under today's standards. It is easy to meet setback require- ments on standard lots. Mr. Mangana stated they would be willing to record a covenant limiting these lots to one single family home per lot, so in essence they would be down - zoning, when they could build four condos or five apartments. This is the private sector's efforts to go a long way in eliminating slum -like conditions at the site and pro- vide needed new housing that appeals to the buying public. New home buyers today are seeking larger homes with amenities and that adds quality to the commu- nity. He stated that on the drawing showing the areas that could be built on under the R -2 setback requirements, Lot 2 would have 945 square foot pad area and a house that looked like a trailer. Also no garage could be " " Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1989 Page 6 constructed as the pad area would be 15 feet by 62 feet. He stated a house could be built on Lot 1, but it would destroy the rear yard area and make excessively side yards. He stated he had indicated the pad areas under R -1 setbacks, under Los Angeles County's R -1 setbacks. He stated that homes could be built on Lots 1 and 3 without a variance. He stated they could sell the existing homes "as is "; they could built on Lots 1 and 3 and sell Lot 2 as a remodel. Mr. Mangana stated that the staff report made reference to the fact the lots are all owned by the same company and that the site could be developed into a condo or apartment containing five units. If they were owned separately, Lots 1 and 3 could have new homes, but Lot 2 could not. He stated he understood the reasons for not wanting to grant variances, however, there is no other acceptable solution. The proposal would result in a total of 7,100 feet of living area. He stated he felt the surrounding neigh- borhood would be better with three single family homes rather than five apartments or condos. Single family homes allow for pride in ownership. Mr. Mangana stated they had researched all the lots in the City of Temple City and have noted all those that were created under the same method. Mr. Mangana stated that today's buyer is more interested in single family homes than in condos. Commissioner Muto asked if the property was under one ownership. Mr. Mangana stated it was now under one ownership, however they were listed as separate lots when the current owner purchased them. Commissioner Muto asked Mr. Mangana about access to the two rear parcels. Mr. Mangana stated they would utilize the existing easement for lots 2 and 3. Commissioner Budds asked if they were planning to con- struct single story homes on these lots. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 11, 1989 Mr. Mangana stated they would be two -story homes on R -2 lots and he did not want someone coming into the City at a later date and ask to build another unit. He stated he wanted to record a deed restriction that only one single - family house could be constructed on each lot. However, it is difficult to meet the R -2 setbacks with R -1 type design. Rick Shroads, CivilTec Engineering, 135 East La Porte, Arcadia, CA 91006, thanked the City Attorney and the Director for their assistance in trying to figure out the complex division of this property and the fact that it could be a Certificate of Compliance. Cindy Sternquist, 6137 North Camellia, stated that on February 28, Director Dawson spoke to the Commission to possibly initiate a Code Amendment for utilization of R -1 Standards on the smaller sized R -2 and R -3 lots. Mrs. Sternquist reiterated the memo Director Dawson had sent to the Commission. With regards to the proposed development and with respect to trying to develop a single family residence on an R -2 Zone, it is more stringent and she agreed with Mike Mangana that it is almost impossible to do so and you are almost penalized by being zoned R -2, but only trying to build with R -1. She stated she was in a similar position and would be having a public hearing soon. She stated she had walked some of the streets in the R -2 and R -3 zones and talked to numerous people who were unaware of the current zone change that took place five months. She presented the Commission with a petition. Chairman Seibert informed Mrs. Sternquist that a study session would be held on April 17 in the Community Room to discuss the possible utilization of R -1 standards in the R -2 and R -3 Zones. Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hear- ing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Commissioner Griffiths asked City Attorney Martin if the Commission was bound by the discovery of the 1958 ac- tions. He stated it looked it was never really subdi- vided. It was set up so that it might be, but the owner apparently never did. City Attorney Martin stated it was a difficult one. A great deal of time was spent in going over the transac- tions from 1958 on. It does appear that the property was deeded out in three parcels at that time, but to a member of the family. It also appears that three dif- ferent building permits were applied for on the property and the plot plan has various endorsements by the " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 11, 1989 County; approved by Regional Planning Commission, below that the proposed development was approved according to County Ordinances. It would appear that the County almost went out of its way to recognize the three lots. The lots are all greater than 5,000 square feet, which was the County requirement at that time. It appears that it met all County requirements. The biggest prob- lem is whether it was put into three different owner- ships at one time for convenience or in fact it has now been brought back to one owner and many Cities do have ordinances that if this does occur and one owner eventu- ally succeeds to ownership of the various parcels again, the City has the option of creating one parcel. The City of Temple City does not have that ordinance. He stated he did not know if the Planning Staff, in light of the disclosure that there are 60 or 70 others like this in the City, might want to consider such an ordi- nance at a future time. He stated that under the cir- cumstances, unless the Commission is really willing to fight, the applicant has shown a prima facie case of the division of the lot. It has been brought back into one ownership, but that is not germane or relevant under present ordinances. Commissioner Griffiths stated we would be perpetuating some non - conforming lots by today's standards. Rezoning to R -1 might be a difficult process as there is not much around the area as R -1. He stated he had reservations about putting in something by this manner. The sub- standard, non - conforming lots would certainly be per- petuated by doing this. He asked if there was another route. Are there any other mechanics to accomplish some solution without the Certificate of Compliance. City Attorney Martin stated the Certificate of Compli- ance was written into the law to provide that when in fact in years past, some governmental authority then control recognized a lot split as they were then called and people used that recognition and expended funds, etc., that at a later date when the City developed a lot split ordinance or parcel map ordinance, they would have to recognize what had gone on in the past. The County did recognize this particular case. the plot plan is stamped all over with County approvals. Also the County Assessor has recognized it, although that is not deter- minative. The applicant does present a prima facie case. There are defects, but they are not very good. One, the transfer from one lot into three lots, was a family transaction and two, whatever has happened in the interim period from 1958, it has now come back into one ownership, however the City does not have an ordinance to recognize that. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 April 11, 1989 Commissioner Griffiths passed in order to hear further discussion. Commissioner Budds stated that the people who spoke in favor of the project made a very good case and they touched on all the issues. The difficult part of this situation is the R -2. He stated he would not be in favor of anything denser than that proposed, however, the property is R -2. If the applicant decided he wanted to refurbish the homes and sell them, the Certificate of Compliance aside, if the burden of proof is preponder- ance rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, then there is a preponderance that three lots exist. If the owner were just to refurbish the existing dwellings, the variances would be worse than what the owner is propos- ing to do with the new structures. Setbacks are better with the new structures. The big concern, however, is setting precedent. We are going to have some "me too" applications. He stated that when you go to the City Code it talks about the burden of proof about excep- tional and ordinary circumstances, the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right and those bur- dens of proof, the burdens of proof are there to grant the Certificate of Compliance. Commissioner Muto stated there was still a cloud over the property. It is not clear cut. If the Certificate of Compliance were issued, there is still a cloud. It does go back many years and admittedly the County recog- nized the lots, but the City Attorney has stated there are many cities, that once the property reverts back to original form or one ownership, the municipality takes advantage of that and requires the normal procedure. He stated he would like a better procedure available rather than the compliance. City Attorney Martin stated he was not sure the City would be happy with one R -2 lot. Commissioner Muto stated he would be for the project if the matter could be completely cleared up. Chairman Seibert stated that fortunately or unfortunate- ly the City was developed prior to the City formation and we have to live with what is existing. It has presented problems and will continue to do so. He stated he personally had no problem with the Certificate of Compliance if that is the apparent solution to the three lots being there, as the County and the Tax Asses- sor has recognized them. However, he stated he had a problem with the variances. He stated if there was new construction being done, then the builder has the option to design the structure to fit the property rather than Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 April 11, 1989 design the Codes to fit the structure. There are some unique instances with regard to R -2 and R -3 single family residences are concerned. The applicant has the property under one ownership and has the option of developing the property as a whole. He stated that with the applicants technology and ability to come up with an innovative design, it would not be placing a hardship to deny the variance. He stated he would be in favor of granting the Certificate of Compliance and to deny the variance. Commissioner Griffiths stated he was not in favor of the variances. New construction is proposed and should comply with the ordinances. Commissioner Budds asked about the argument that if the Certificate of Compliance is granted, and the variances are denied, the only option to the owner is to refurbish the existing houses, the owner would not have to come before the Commission for any variances. However, the houses as they now exist have worse setbacks than those the applicant is requesting variances for. When the area was zoned R -2, the information about the three lots was probably unknown. The question is, are we really looking at an R -1 in an R -2 Zone. Commissioner Griffiths stated the proposal submitted was let's look at the project as if it were an R -1, and we will be considering some sort of mechanics where this can be done with a restriction that it be maintained as an R -1. Commissioner Budds stated the mechanics were not in place and that is not an option. Chairman Seibert stated the situation on the proposed R -1 use in the R -2 and R -3 Zones is that you would be looking at existing structures to be modified. However, this project is total new construction and that must be kept in mind. Land values and economics are going to prohibit anyone from maintaining those properties as they are in their present state and rent them out. It is going to have to be developed in some manner. Commissioner Budds agreed with Chairman Seibert and stated if you look at the Certificate of Compliance stating there is three lots in an R -2 Zone, what would be developed. He further stated it might be more advan- tageous to deny everything than to grant a Certificate of Compliance and then denying the variances. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 April 11, 1989 Commissioner Griffiths stated that even with the Cer- tificate of Compliance, since the applicant owns all three lots, he could still develop it as one parcel. Chairman Seibert asked City Attorney Martin if the applicant could develop without having the lots re- joined. City Attorney Martin stated that each lot would be R -2. Commissioner Budds stated there were some strong feel- ings with regards to new structures and the setbacks and he agreed. He stated he would also vote against the Certificate of Compliance. Commissioner Budds moved to deny the Certificate of Compliance and the Variances as the case has not been made that three separate lots exist and any new struc- tures should meet the current code requirements, and it does appear that the three lots are under one ownership and could be developed without great hardship. Seconded by Commissioner Muto. Roll Call: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Commissioners Budds, Muto, Seibert Commissioner Griffiths Commissioner Coolman Chairman Seibert informed the applicants that the re- quest for the Certificate of Compliance and the Zone Variances have been denied, but that there was a right of appeal to the City Council within 10 days. 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -960 ZONE VARIANCE 89 -982 Site: 5818 NORTH MUSCATEL Owner /Applicant: Mrs. Yii -Tai Cheng 325 West Main Street Alhambra, CA 91801 " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 April 11, 1989 Request: A Conditional Use Permit to construct a 2 -Unit Duplex behind an existing dwelling and a Zone Variance to permit a 14 foot driveway instead of the minimum required 16 foot wide driveway in the R -3 Zone. Chairman Seibert asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had and presented the report. Chairman Seibert asked the members of the Commission if they had inspected the site. Commissioners Muto and Budds stated they had. A video was shown and narrated by Assistant Planner Kates. Chairman Seibert asked that the video be stopped on a closeup of the porch area. Director Dawson stated that the applicant requested to move the steps toward the driveway to access the porch. However, the driveway width would be approximately 14 feet plus a few inches, but still less than the 16 foot minimum required for a driveway serving five or more parking area. Chairman Seibert stated it was 15 feet to the inside edge of the post, which is a foot short of the require- ment, but also notice that if the steps are moved to the front as proposed, that will obstruct access to the garage also. The public hearing was opened. Freeman Han, 9923 Nadine Street, Temple City, designer for the project, stated that the owner has agreed to all the conditions imposed by the Planning Department and he would be happy to answer any questions. There was no opposition to the project. Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hear- ing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Commissioner Budds stated his concern with this case was the stairs that lead to the main entrance of the house. Even if the proposal was 15 feet rather than 14 feet, that would leave a very small stairway and with traffic " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 April 11, 1989 coming up and down the driveway this would create a safety hazard for the use of that particular front door. He stated he was not in favor of the request. Commissioner Muto stated the new stairs that are contem- plated would definitely be obstructing cars coming out of the existing garage and could create a problem. Commissioner Griffiths stated he had much the same concerns. He asked if there was a way architecturally to accommodate steps inside the building or to explore other ways to accommodate the steps. The steps would conflict outside the building on that particular corner. Chairman Seibert stated he and Director Dawson had spent some time at the site looking over the plans. It ap- pears that with some modification to the structure, the 16 foot width on the driveway could be accommodated. No matter where the steps are located, it would obstruct the entrance and exit from the garage. The redesign of the front house is not the job of the Commission. He stated he would recommend granting of the Conditional Use Permit and denial of the variance, which would allow the applicant to build the duplexes and the design modification to accommodate the 16 foot driveway is up to the applicant. Commissioner Griffiths stated he was in favor of the new construction. Commissioner Muto moved to approve Conditional use Permit 88 -960 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval, and to deny the Zone Variance 89 -982 as there is no hardship involved. Seconded by Commissioner Griffiths and approved unanimously. Chairman Seibert informed the applicant that the units could be constructed but that they must provide the 16 foot wide driveway and modify the front structure to accommodate that. He also informed the applicant of the right of appeal. B. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -983 Site: 6022 -6030 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Al Stanton 240 Whispering Pines Arcadia, CA 91006 Applicant: Stewart Chung, AIA 1151 El Centro Street South Pasadena, CA 91030 " " " Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1989 Request: Page 14 A Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 10 -Unit Apartment Building in the R -3 Zone. Chairman Seibert asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had been sent and he pre- sented the staff report. There were no questions of staff and the public hearing was opened. Steward Chung, SCA Architects, 2000 Hanscom Drive, South Pasadena, CA 91030, stated that the project ex- plains itself and he would be happy to answer any ques- tions the Commission might have. He stated that most developers want to put the maximum amount of units on a property and that may not be the most desirable, how- ever, the owner of this project took pride in the pro- ject and did not utilize the maximum number that could be built. The project incorporates a lot of single family features, such as private patios. Chairman Seibert asked Mr. Chung if he had read all the conditions. Mr. Chung stated he had and was in agreement. Lulu Choi, 6027 North Sultana Avenue, stated she would be directly affected by this project as she lives di- rectly behind the two existing units that would be torn down. She stated they had upgraded their property to increase the value of the neighborhood. The area has been kept up. It is a safe area and has a low crime rate. She asked if the project could be proposed for a condominium rather than an apartment. She felt that apartments with transient occupants might increase the crime rate. She stated a nearby condo project had not increased the crime rate, but rather had increased the property values in the area. She was also concerned about the traffic in the area. She stated that apart- ment dwellers do not seem to care as much about property as do owners. Chairman Seibert stated that traffic had been taken into consideration. He also stated as a personal opinion that the transient concern would not be significant as the possible rents that would be charged would not attract that type of people. Economic interests cannot be taken into consideration by the Commission. The Commission has to concern itself with the law and how the project applies to the law and to the Code. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 April 11, 1989 Ms. Choi stated that the property next to the proposed project has a 20 foot wall around the condominium which divides up the area and does give some privacy to the property behind it. She stated she would like to see a similar division for the proposed project. Chairman Seibert informed Ms. Choi that a 20 foot high wall was not acceptable as the City Zoning Code limits the height to 6 feet and that a 6 foot high wall around the project was a condition of approval. Commissioner Budds moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Griffiths. Director Dawson made a correction to the staff report on page 2 where the characteristics were summarized. Under density, it was incorrectly indicated that there were 10 dwelling, units per acre and it should be 10 units and the actual density is 17.76 du /ac. The maximum per acre permitted in the R -3 zone is 24. Essentially the pro- ject has 18 units per acre. Commissioner Griffiths thanked Director Dawson for the correction. Commissioner Muto stated this was a very good project. He was happy that the applicant had not tried to develop to the maximum and had not used a subterranean garage for the project. He further stated it would be easily compatible with the units to the south and to proposed units on the north. Commissioners Griffiths, Budds, and Seibert concurred with Commissioner Muto. Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -983 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None 8. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: None 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: None Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1989 10. ADJOURNMENT: Page 16 As there was no further business, Chairman Seibert adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. to a Study Session on April 17 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss subterranean parking and driveway slopes, flag lots and utilization of R -1 standards on small sized R -2 and R -3 lots. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, April 25, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, 5938 North Kauffman Avenue, Temple City. ATTEST: dicLCF- _ Secretary C i man h